Street-Level Decision Making: Acceptability, Feasibility, and Use of Evidence-Based Practices in Adult Probation

• Author: Jill Viglione
• Published date: 01 October 2017
• Date: 01 October 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817718583
• Subject Matter: Articles

718583CJBXXX10.1177/0093854817718583Criminal Justice and Behaviorviglione / Street-Level Decision Making
research-article2017
Street-LeveL DeciSion Making
acceptability, Feasibility, and Use of evidence-Based
Practices in adult Probation
JILL VIgLIONE
University of Central Florida
growing empirical research finds that a correctional system devoted to punishment is ineffective and can produce crimino-
genic effects. As a result, justice organizations, including probation, are encouraging managers and staff to adopt evidence-
based practices (EBPs), supported by scientific evidence, such as validated risk and needs assessments and
cognitive-behavioral therapies. Implementation of EBPs falls heavily on street-level workers, such as probation officers
(POs) as they implement policy, yet little attention examines whether and how EBPs align within the traditionally authoritar-
ian justice environment. Using over 1,000 hr of observation and interview data with probation staff, the present study exam-
ines how probation staff understand and use EBPs. Findings indicate that probation staff continue to make discretionary
decisions regarding whom they can use EBPs with and situations in which EBP use is appropriate. Findings have significant
implications for the acceptability, feasibility, and transportability of EBPs in criminal justice environments.
Keywords: community corrections; probation; evidence-based practices; decision making; risk management; qualitative
methods
Approximately one in every 31 adults is under some form of correctional supervision
in the United States (Pew Center on the States, 2009). Community corrections form
the largest piece of the overall correctional system with approximately 5 million adults
under community supervision (glaze & Bonczar, 2010). With tight budgets and a push
toward accountability, many justice organizations, including probation, are implementing
evidence-based practices (EBPs), or practices supported by scientific evidence (Sherman,
1998). In corrections, common EBPs include practices such as validated risk and needs
assessments, motivational interviewing (MI), and cognitive-behavioral therapies. Current
aUthor’S note: This study was funded by the National Institute of Justice, 2014-IJ-CX-2004, and
National Science Foundation, SES-1420311. All opinions are those of the authors and do not represent the
opinions of the National Institute of Justice or National Science Foundation or any governmental agency. I
would like to thank Lauren Duhaime for her efforts on this study as well as Danielle S. Rudes, Faye S. Taxman,
Stephen D. Mastrofski, and Steven Belenko for their comments on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence
concerning this article should be addressed to Jill Viglione, University of Central Florida, 12805 Pegasus
Drive, Orlando, FL 32816; e-mail: jill.viglione@ucf.edu.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2017, Vol. 44, No. 10, October 2017, 1356 –1381.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817718583
DOI: 10.1177/0093854817718583
© 2017 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
1356

---

Viglione / STREET-LEVEL DECISION MAKINg 1357
research finds that when used appropriately, evidenced-based, rehabilitative interventions
effectively reduce recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) and improve overall probation
success (Taxman, 2008).
EBP implementation falls heavily on street-level workers, such as probation officers
(POs), as they adopt, adapt, and implement policy and practice changes by incorporating
them into work routines and decisions. Over several decades, a substantial body of research
documents and analyzes the role of street-level bureaucrats within criminal justice organi-
zations in policy implementation and decision-making processes. Beginning with Lipsky’s
(1980) foundational work, street-level bureaucracy theory describes street-level workers as
front-line policy interpreters primarily responsible for policy implementation. Following
this framework, other scholars note the prevalence of discretionary decision making present
in street-level work (e.g., Feldman, 1992; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000) that affects
the interpretation and implementation of new policies.
Examination of discretionary decision-making processes surrounding EBP implementa-
tion is critical given previous research documenting the challenge of changing practices
within correctional environments (see, for example, Battalino, Beutler, & Shani, 1996;
Ferguson, 2002; Rudes, 2012; Viglione, Rudes, & Taxman, 2015), and research suggesting
street-level workers often interpret and implement policy in ways that misalign with orga-
nizational reforms (Lynch, 1998; Rudes, 2012). The decisions street-level workers make
can have practical consequences as they may limit the fidelity to the evidence-based model
and/or jeopardize the overall effectiveness of the practice (e.g., Viglione et al., 2015). These
studies highlight the importance of examining reform beyond the organizational level, at
the street-level where policy implementation actually occurs (Lipsky, 1980), yet most
research examining implementation of EBPs focuses on outcomes rather than the processes.
This leaves a critical gap in knowledge regarding how street-level workers make decisions
while undergoing change as the beneficial effects of EBPs are dependent on street-level
workers’ decisions when carrying out organizational policies and practices. Using over
1,000 hr of observation and interview data with probation staff, this study examines deci-
sion making in the EBP era in a correctional agency that has attempted to make these shifts
for more than a decade. The goal of this research is to use a decision-making framework to
better understand how street-level workers make decisions regarding EBPs within their
organizational context.
eviDence-BaSeD PracticeS
The term evidence-based practice is defined by the National Institute of Corrections
(NIC) as “the objective, balanced, and responsible use of current research and the best
available data to guide policy and practice decisions, such that outcomes for consumers are
improved” (guevara & Solomon, 2009, p. ix). The designation of a practice as an EBP sug-
gests “there is sufficient science to declare a particular practice or treatment is efficacious
and can be implemented as part of routine practice” (Taxman & Belenko, 2011, p. 3). Thus,
the term EBP is applied to individual practices (such as risk and needs assessments) when
research indicates they achieve positive results (Taxman & Belenko, 2011). Within com-
munity corrections, emphasis on EBPs was promoted through the “what works” movement
in the late 1980s (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). Throughout this movement, a number
of research studies, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews have identified a number of
practices as evidence-based.

---

1358 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
The NIC synthesized the resulting research on efficacious practices for community cor-
rections agencies into eight principles (Bogue et al., 2004). These eight principles serve as a
resource for many correctional agencies, including the agency in the present study, as effec-
tive practices to reduce offender recidivism. The eight evidence-based principles for effec-
tive interventions include the following: (a) assess actuarial risk/needs using a standardized
instrument; (b) enhance intrinsic motivation; (c) target interventions through application of
the risk, need, responsivity principles as well as adequate dosage of treatment; (d) skill train
with directed practice and use of cognitive-behavioral techniques; (e) increase positive rein-
forcement; (f) engage ongoing support in natural communities; (g) measure relevant pro-
cesses/practices, and (h) provide measurement feedback. Taken together, these principles
suggest specific strategies correctional agencies can implement to become evidence-based
including risk-assessment practices, individualizing services to target factors associated with
criminal behavior, incorporating treatment planning, balancing rewards and sanctions, and
providing an integrated approach for offenders with multiple needs (Andrews & Bonta,
2010; gendreau, Little, & goggin, 1996). Importantly, within this research on best practices
in community supervision, much research demonstrates the link between risk level and pro-
gram effectiveness. Several research studies and meta-analytic reviews conclude that inten-
sive correctional programs are more effective when delivered to higher risk offenders
(Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews et al., 1990; Andrews & Dowden, 1999; Bonta, Wallace-
Capretta, & Rooney, 2000; Dowden & Andrews, 1999a, 1999b, 2004; Hanley, 2006;
Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002). On the other hand, inappropriate supervision and matching
of treatment intensity with offender risk level can actually result in increased criminal behav-
ior. For example, in a meta-analysis of 80 studies, Andrews and Bonta (2010) find that pro-
grams delivered to higher risk offenders are five times more effective in reducing recidivism
than programs delivered to lower risk offenders.
iMPLeMenting eviDence-BaSeD PracticeS
Effectively implementing best practices has significant implications, with a recent meta-
analysis finding offenders who are supervised by POs trained in EBPs were less likely to
reoffend, with approximately 13% lower recidivism rates compared with offenders super-
vised by untrained POs (Chadwick, Dewolf, & Serin, 2015). However,...